Comcast has formally announced their version of TV Everywhere is now online.  Fancast XFINITY TV “is available to any Comcast customer with a digital cable and Internet subscription.”  There is no additional charge for the service.

Comcast customers can access the service after logging in through Comcast.net or Fancast.com with their account username and password.  Once “authenticated” as a confirmed Comcast cable subscriber, customers can watch approximately 2,000 hours of programming from more than 30 cable networks, including premium channels HBO, Cinemax, and Starz.  A demonstration showed Comcast had complete seasons of series like The Sopranos and Big Love.

Some programmers are exploring whether Nielsen can count online viewing as part of its ratings measurements.

Initially, Comcast will restrict access to customers who are confirmed digital cable and broadband customers, but will extend the service to those who only subscribe to Comcast cable programming in approximately six months once security and authentication issues have been resolved, according to company officials.

The service should be accessible by subscribers on-the-go through mobile broadband or other connections, as long as customers log in.  Access is not allowed outside of the United States for copyright clearance reasons.

Customers should be aware any video accessed by the service counts against Comcast’s 250GB monthly usage limit.  Advertising on the service also counts.  Unlike Hulu which typically provides just one advertisement for every break, Comcast’s program partners have tested full commercial loads, up to seven minutes worth in a 30-minute program.  That’s 14 ads to sit through, each eating into your usage allowance.  Comcast says programmers are individually testing different amounts of advertising to learn how viewers react.  The prevailing view is that online viewers are less tolerant of advertising than typical television viewers.

Kyle McSlarrow

Once again, the telecommunications industry is threatening to run to the courts if it faces Net Neutrality regulation, claiming their corporate freedom of speech would be violated by protecting the rights of consumers to access the content of their choice on their terms.

Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the nation’s big cable operator trade association, delivered the warning at yesterday’s appearance at the Media Institute in Washington, DC.

In a speech clearly designed to put regulators on notice, McSlarrow dismissed Net Neutrality as a solution in search of a problem and a concept big cable would likely challenge in the courts.

“When all the dire warnings of the net neutrality proponents are stripped away, there really are no signs of actual harm.  Yes, there have been a couple of isolated incidents that keep being held up as examples of what needs to be prevented, but nothing that suggests any threat to the openness of the Internet,” McSlarrow said. “Internet Service Providers do not threaten free speech; their business is to enable speech and they are part of an ecosystem that represents perhaps the greatest engine for promotion of democracy and free expression in history.”

McSlarrow told the audience that the cable industry would be among the victims of Net Neutrality, claiming their rights to transact business on their networks could be trampled by an overzealous Federal Communications Commission.

Almost every net neutrality proposal would seek to control how an ISP affects the delivery of Internet content or applications as it reaches its customers.   This is particularly odd for two reasons:  First, there is plenty of case law about instances of speech compelled by the government – “forced speech” — that suggests such rules should be scrutinized closely. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it is an almost completely unnecessary risk.  All ISPs have stated repeatedly that they will not block their customers from accessing any lawful content or application on the Internet.  Competitive pressures alone ensure this result:  we are in the business of maximizing our customers’ choices and experiences on the Internet.  The counter examples used to debate this point are so few and so distinguishable as to make the point for me.

Beyond the forced speech First Amendment implications, however, net neutrality rules also could infringe First Amendment rights because they could prevent providers from delivering their traditional multichannel video programming services or new services that are separate and distinct from their Internet access service.  While the FCC’s NPRM acknowledges the need to carve out “managed” or “specialized” services from the scope of any new rules, it also expresses concerns that “the growth of managed or specialized services might supplant or otherwise negatively affect the open Internet.”   Meaning what?  Well, the strong implication is some kind of guaranteed amount of bandwidth capacity for services the government deems important.

McSlarrow is focused front and center on the rights of providers, not consumers, when he speaks about the First Amendment.  His constituents are Time Warner Cable, Cox, Comcast, Charter, and the other NCTA members, namely big cable companies.  In his view, any regulation or interference in how providers decide to deliver service is a potential violation of their constitutionally protected rights.  That’s a side effect of the nation’s courts recognizing that corporations have rights, too.

McSlarrow predicts a laundry list of  ‘doom and gloom’ scenarios that would befall providers if Net Neutrality was enacted:

• Net Neutrality could prevent providers from delivering their traditional multichannel video programming services or new services that are separate and distinct from their Internet access service;
• Net Neutrality would prohibit ISPs and applications providers from contracting for any enhanced or prioritized delivery of that application or content to the ISPs’ customers.  Under the proposal, ISPs wouldn’t even be permitted to offer such prioritization or quality-of-service enhancements at nondiscriminatory prices, terms and conditions to anyone who wanted it.
• Net Neutrality may mean that they [content providers] can’t provide material in the enhanced form that they want.
• Net Neutrality could tell a new entrant or an existing content provider that it cannot enter into arrangements with an ISP for unique prioritization or quality of service enhancements that might enable it to enter the marketplace and have its voice heard along with those of established competitors.

McSlarrow doesn’t offer a shred of evidence to prove his more alarmist predictions, even as he demands it from those who support Net Neutrality.  The kind of unregulated, non-neutral net McSlarrow advocates already exists in places like Canada.  What you see there is what you’ll get here  — threats of usage caps unless speed throttles are permitted, arbitrary “network management” that reduces speeds for some services while “enhancing” or “exempting” certain other services (usually those partnered with the provider), and in the end usage caps -and- throttles -and- price increases.  In Canada, the story extends beyond the retail broadband market.  Wholesale broadband sold to independent ISPs comes nicely throttled and overpriced as well.

McSlarrow maintains a see no evil, hear no evil approach to his provider friends who pay his salary.  Comcast’s quiet throttling of peer to peer applicati0ns that blew up into a major scandal when the truth came out was evidently one of the “isolated incidents” he speaks about.  That’s only the nation’s largest cable operator — no reason to get bent out of shape about that.

Let’s break down McSlarrow’s concerns and read between the lines:

• Nothing about Net Neutrality impacts on a cable system’s ability to deliver its multichannel video programming.  What McSlarrow is hinting at is that cable may end up using some of the same technology that moves online video to your computer to transport television programming to your TV set.  AT&T does that today with its U-verse system.  It’s basically a fat broadband pipe over which television, telephone, and broadband service travels together over a single pair of wires.  There is no demand that broadband must usurp your cable television package.
• McSlarrow is trying to be clever when he describes “new services” that he defines as separate and distinct from Internet access service.  That usually includes “digital phone” products which providers already exempt from usage limits imposed on competitors like Vonage.  If “network management” throttles Vonage while exempting the cable system’s own phone product, is that fair?  What about the forthcoming TV Everywhere?  Could a provider throttle the speed of Hulu while exempting its own online television service?  What happens if a provider’s own service is exempted from these throttles and can deliver a higher quality picture because of that exemption?
• “Bandwidth is not infinite.”  That’s something I’ve heard providers argue for more than a year complaining about their congested networks and why they need to impose controls to “manage them.” McSlarrow wants providers to be able to “manage” those networks by selling enhanced speeds for applications that partner with the provider.  Unfortunately, because cable broadband is a shared resource, those premium enhanced speeds will consume a larger share of that resource, naturally slowing down everyone else who didn’t agree to pay. Providers will say they are not ‘intentionally’ slowing down the free lane, but that’s a distinction without a difference to the consumer who will find many of their websites slower to access.
• Today’s model asks consumers to make the ultimate choice. If they want a faster online experience, they can purchase a faster tier of service. Now providers want to change that by establishing a nice protection racket — pay us for “enhanced speeds” or your content may not reach your customers at a tolerable rate of speed.
• It’s ironic McSlarrow is suddenly crying about how unfair it is content providers can’t purchase these “enhanced services.”  That’s a change of tune from an industry that used to accuse the large number of content providers who support Net Neutrality as freeloaders trying to use “their pipes for free.”

Customer demand for higher speeds and more reliable service should be all the impetus the cable industry needs to deliver quality service, particularly considering consumers pay a lot of money for the service and remain loyal to it.

McSlarrow’s final argument is a testament to the arrogance of the cable industry on the issues that concern subscribers.  A-la-carte channel choice, equipment options and expenses, usage limits, rate increases, and service standards are all issues this industry has fought with regulators about.  What customers want is secondary, and can remain that way as long as consumer choice is kept limited.  McSlarrow’s valiant defense of the rights and freedoms of the cable industry to offer extra freedom of speech through enhanced speed-privileges to content partners is more important to him and his provider friends than the rights of customers to not have their service artificially degraded to make room for even bigger cable profits.

Subscription television providers should relax: Americans are not moving away from watching television on television sets.  Nielsen’s Three Screen Report, issued today, finds most Americans are not fundamentally changing the way they watch TV — they are simply taking advantage of more convenient ways to watch.

The report shows considerable year over year growth in terms of time spent for Digital Video Recorder viewing (up 21.1%) and online video (up 34.9%) since the fall of 2008. Given the consistent spike in usage among the three screens of television, Internet and mobile, consumers are clearly adding video platforms to their schedule, rather than replacing them.

“Americans today have an insatiable appetite for not only content, but also choice,” says Nic Covey, director of cross-platform insights at Nielsen. “Across all age groups, we see consumers adding the Internet and mobile devices to their media diet — consuming media anytime and anywhere possible.”

Nearly 99% of television viewing is spent watching it on a television set, according to Nielsen’s findings.  But consumers are also discovering broadband and mobile viewing can add convenient new options, and are taking advantage of them:

• In 3Q09, the average American watched 31 hours of TV per week, with 31 minutes spent in playback mode with their DVR.
• In addition, each week the average consumer spent 4 hours on the Internet and 22 minutes watching online video.
• The average consumer spent 3 minutes watching mobile video each week.

The biggest fans of mobile video are teenagers, some spending just over seven hours per month watching video on their phones.  Watching television on a broadband connection is a popular trend among those aged 18-44, one noticed by Comcast chief operating officer Steve Burke.  Burke spoke about the trend at the recent Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing’s three day conference in Denver.  He noted his own children now prefer to watch their shows on a laptop from one of the free online services and not on the family television.

Allowing young viewers to grow up assuming they can watch anything, anywhere, for potentially no charge is a very dangerous proposition for people in Burke’s business.

“An entire generation is growing up with that preference,” Burke said. “If we don’t do something to change that behavior so they respect copyrights on the side of content provider, and cable subscriptions or satellite subscriptions or telco subscriptions on the side of the distributors, we are going to wake up with a lot of ingrained habits going the wrong way and we will see cord-cutting.”

Comcast has two ways to make sure viewers learn their lessons about paying for what they watch:

1. The formalized introduction of the forthcoming usage meter, better enforcing Comcast’s 250GB monthly limit for their broadband service.  Watching a lot of online video will take a major bite out of your broadband usage allowance.
2. The launch of Comcast’s Fancast Xfinity TV, a service that will allow only existing Comcast cable-TV package subscribers access to many of their favorite shows online, on demand, for no additional charge.  That new name comes courtesy of Comcast’s marketing gurus, to replace what readers better know as: TV Everywhere.
   

The usage meter and “authenticated subscribers-only” pay wall are Comcast’s one-two punch to keep subscribers from eventually dropping their cable-TV package to watch television exclusively over their broadband connection.

Cable operators already treat companies like Netflix, which use broadband to deliver an increasing number of movies and TV shows on-demand to subscribers, as a major threat.  Insight Communications CEO Jamie Howard called Netflix the equivalent of the third largest cable operator in the country in terms of content delivered.  That’s content not owned or directly managed by Insight or other cable providers.

Some in the industry believe who owns and controls online video will eventually decide the winners and losers in the subscription television business.  Derrick Frost, founder and CEO of Invision.TV, an Internet video search engine, warned the outcome of the battle can’t come soon enough.  Otherwise, consumers “will find other ways — legally or illegally — to access it.”

Mark A. Jamison

Stop the Cap! reader Joe sends along news of another one of those guest opinion hit pieces on Net Neutrality that pop up regularly in the media.  This one, The Internet is Never Neutral, printed in today’s Sun-Sentinel in south Florida, comes from Mark A. Jamison and Janice Hauge, a dynamic duo who have co-written several papers that always manage to turn up favorable conclusions for big telecommunications companies, including these page-turners:

• “Bureaucrats as Entrepreneurs: Do Municipal Telecom Providers Hinder Private Entrepreneurs?”
• “Subsidies and Distorted Markets: Do Telecom Subsidies Affect Competition?”
• “Dumbing Down the Net: A Further Look at the Net Neutrality Debate.”

The two are also working on other papers purporting to study regulatory policy and competition issues.  Let me illustrate my psychic powers by guessing they’ll find regulatory authorities to be obstacles to the well-oiled telecommunications machine and competition will be most hearty if there are no pesky regulations to hamper it.  We’ve seen how well that has worked so far for consumers in North America.

Remember Al Gore calling the Internet the information superhighway? The metaphor wasn’t and isn’t perfect, but it is instructive. Suppose we applied net neutrality to our transportation system — there would be no high-occupancy vehicle lanes during rush hour, no car-only lanes on interstates, and no toll road as an alternative to I-95 in South Florida. Transportation would be more costly and provide less value.

Forcing net neutrality would have similar results. Time-sensitive information, such as stock market transactions, would wait in line behind football game highlights.

Jamison, who is a former manager at Sprint Communications, and Hauge miss the entire point of the Internet’s biggest strength: its equal treatment of traffic from the smallest blog to Amazon.com.  Assuming providers, earning billions in profits even as their costs decline, invested appropriately in those networks, there would be no need for high-occupancy vehicle lanes and toll roads.  These kinds of “traffic management” techniques are proposed because provider dollars don’t keep up with consumer demand.  Social engineering tries to throttle traffic downwards by discouraging it with toll fees or manage it with special high cost lanes reserved only for those willing to pay or follow arbitrary rules governing their use.  More often than not, those premium lanes go underutilized while the rest of us remain stuck in the slow lane.

Net Neutrality would not impede network management that enhances the efficiency of traffic, except when it comes at the expense of someone else’s traffic. Net Neutrality also throws up a roadblock against providers who would plan to cash in with enhanced connectivity services that cannot exist unless  a market is created to sell them.  It’s similar to providers in Canada limiting your access to broadband, then throwing a penalty fee on your bill… unless you sign up and pay for their “insurance” plan to protect you from those charges.

Want to run a video streaming application on the Internet?  Pay for a broadband provider’s deluxe delivery insurance, and customers will be able to watch that video without buffering.  The alternative is to be stuck waiting because your video is being delivered on an artificial “slow lane.”

If you are thinking that it sounds like net neutrality restricts innovation and hurts customers, you’re right. Our research has shown that net neutrality limits innovation, contrary to the claims of the net neutrality proponents. How can this be? Imagine a one dimensional network — one that does nothing but carry information from point to point, which is how the old Internet has worked. What kinds of content providers flourish in that context? Those big enough to distribute their software across the net and those whose software takes advantage of the great bandwidth that they don’t have to pay for.

Their research makes numerous assumptions that might prove accurate in a laboratory environment, but simply discounts provider mischief in their efforts to maximize profits and minimize costs.  Providers have earned countless billions providing this “one dimensional network” to consumers.  It’s the one bright spot in a lackluster telecommunications sector.  Those who innovate new broadband applications have flourished.  Some providers who have not want to innovate in a different way – by inventing new Internet Overcharging schemes to profit from the service without actually improving it.  When their interests are at stake in owning and managing their own content services, bandwidth suddenly becomes plentiful.  The TV Everywhere project will potentially provide a value-added service to cable and telco TV providers, all made possible in marked contrast to their argument that other producers’ video content is clogging their networks.

Another naked fallacy in the authors’ argument is that content providers don’t pay for the bandwidth to host and distribute their content.  They do — to the companies that host their content and provide connectivity to the Internet.  That’s the job of web hosting companies.  Internet service providers simply want to be paid extra for doing their job – providing connectivity to consumers who pay $4o or more a month Free Press found costs about $8 to provide, and then also charging content creators a second time to facilitate delivery of that content.  That’s akin to charging a phone customer for placing a long distance call and also demanding to bill the person who answers.

Now, suppose that the network can offer enhancements that improve customers’ experiences. Content providers whose sites would not benefit from such enhancements could ignore the offering. But there will be some content providers who could improve their services by buying the enhancements, such as priority packet delivery. These sites become better without net neutrality and offer customers more service. In other words, there is more innovation and greater customer welfare without net neutrality than with it.

Promises, promises.  Just getting these providers to upgrade broadband speeds to consumers has been a never-ending quest.  Many consumers are willing to pay for “improved service” in the form of faster connections to the Internet.  Consumers are not willing to pay more for artificially limited service, be it through throttled speeds or usage caps.

At the conclusion of their study, which assumes providers will not leverage their duopoly in most American markets to increase pricing/revenue and reduce costs by limiting demand on their networks, they readily admit they did not take into account several possible scenarios:

One issue is how the offering of premium transmission might affect the network provider’s incentive to change the standard transmission speed. At least AT&T has committed to not degrade service for any network user, but it is unclear how such a commitment would be enforced.

Secondly, we do not analyze the effects of peer-to-peer communication, which is growing in importance on the Internet.

Thirdly, we do not consider the effects of vertical integration by the network provider and whether this would provide an incentive for foreclosure.

The PURC is part of the University of Florida, but also receives private corporate funding

Because the broadband industry fights any attempt to regulate their service, it is unlikely any such promise from AT&T would be enforced.  What AT&T defines as “degraded” service is open to interpretation as well.  As broadband demand is dynamic and growing, should AT&T leave standard transmission speeds exactly as they are today, that non-premium service would be degraded through inattention to broadband growth.  Peer to peer communication is largely a story from the first round of the Net Neutrality debate in 2006-7.  A more significant amount of traffic is now attributed to online video.  Finally, not considering vertical integration in the cable and telephone industry is a fatal flaw.  The history of telecommunications regulation has largely been written during periods when the cable and telephone industry abused their market position to overcharge consumers for service, lock up content distribution channels, and forestall competition wherever and whenever possible.

Frankly, Jamison and Hauge’s world view only innovates new, even fatter profits for providers like AT&T.  Perhaps some of those profits can go towards even greater funding for the Public Utility Research Center, where Jamison serves as director and Hauge as a Senior Research Associate.  The PURC, part of the University of Florida, just happens to have, among others, AT&T and Embarq Florida as sponsors, and both companies have seats on the PURC Executive Committee.

Sun-Sentinel readers don’t have that information because it’s not included in the disclosure at the bottom of the piece.  Following the money would shed a lot more sun on this important debate.

Joost, the troubled online video site launched by the founders of Kazaa and Skype has been quietly sold for an undisclosed sum to an online advertising firm.

Adconion Media Group said Tuesday it acquired both the distribution technology that makes Joost function and the Joost trademark.  The dozen or so remaining employees Joost kept on will become Adconion employees and help the site continue some of its entertainment focus.

Joost’s business plan was based on ad-supported programming, but with the 2008 economic crisis causing the bottom to drop out of online advertising, the company couldn’t sustain itself.  Efforts to refocus on online video delivery for businesses also proved challenging.  Joost has been on the sales block for months, with cable operators Comcast and Time Warner Cable approached about a possible deal.  But both cable operators signed on to the TV Everywhere concept instead.

About 12 Joost employees — the majority — were given jobs at Adconion, which plans to continue operating Joost.com as an entertainment site.  Presumably most of the online advertising that remains will be managed by Adconion itself.

Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom, the founders, initially envisioned Joost as a peer to peer sharing site for video, but didn’t fare well at a time when many online video sites had left the peer to peer model behind for direct delivery of video.